Andrew Weir Shipping Ltd v Wartsila UK Ltd & Anor

Summary judgment is appropriate where a claim has no realistic prospect of success and no compelling reason requires a trial. The court must avoid a mini-trial, but it need not accept unsupported factual assertions or a legally untenable case. Summary disposal is generally inappropriate where material facts are disputed, the existence or scope of a duty is fact-sensitive, or the law is developing.

A supplier may potentially owe duties to provide warnings or instructions where the relationship, assumption of responsibility, reliance, foreseeability and fairness support that conclusion. A non-manufacturer’s liability cannot be determined summarily where those matters require factual investigation. For jurisdiction under Article 6(1) of Council Regulation 44/2001, claims must be sufficiently closely connected to avoid irreconcilable judgments.

Andrew Weir Shipping Ltd, the bareboat chartered owner of the vessel Baltic Eider, claimed against Wartsila UK Ltd and Wartsila Finland International Ltd following an engine fire. The claim concerned an allegedly defective or unsuitable copper washer, inadequate torque instructions and the absence of a locking device for a fuel-injection-pump erosion plug.

Wartsila UK sought summary judgment under CPR Part 24. Wartsila Finland challenged the jurisdiction of the English court under Council Regulation 44/2001. The claimant sought permission to amend its particulars of claim to add servicing-contract and overhaul-spare-parts-contract claims. The central issues were whether the claims had realistic prospects of success and whether the claims against the two defendants were sufficiently connected to found jurisdiction.

1. Part 24 test. Under CPR Part 24.2, summary judgment may be given where the claimant has no realistic prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason for trial. A realistic prospect requires more than a fanciful prospect and must carry some degree of conviction. The court must not conduct a mini-trial, but may analyse the evidence and dispose summarily of claims which have no real substance or cannot succeed in law.
2. Summary disposal was inappropriate for issues involving substantial factual disputes, the existence or scope of a duty of care, or developing law. The proposed overhaul-spare-parts claim against Wartsila UK raised arguable questions about the description and intended function of the kits, the adequacy of instructions and implied contractual terms. Permission to amend was therefore granted.
3. The pleaded supply-contract claim failed against both defendants. The available evidence showed no realistic prospect of proving that either defendant supplied the copper washer found on the engine. The servicing-contract claim failed against Wartsila UK because there was no evidence that its engineers worked on the fuel pumps. A good arguable case remained against Wartsila Finland, subject to proper particulars.
4. The tort claims against both defendants were allowed to proceed. Whether Wartsila UK assumed responsibility to warn or advise depended on a fact-sensitive assessment of the parties’ relationship, reliance, foreseeability, proximity, fairness, justice and reasonableness. Its position as part of the manufacturer’s group and as the United Kingdom network company could not be treated at this stage as that of a mere parts distributor.
5. For Article 6(1), the claims were sufficiently closely connected where separate proceedings could produce irreconcilable findings about causation, the washer, torque and securing arrangements. The jurisdiction challenge therefore failed except in relation to the supply-contract claim, which had no proper issue to be tried.
6. Wartsila UK’s application succeeded for the supply and servicing-contract claims but failed for the tort and overhaul-spare-parts claims. Permission to amend was granted against Wartsila UK for the overhaul-spare-parts claim and against Wartsila Finland for the servicing claim. Costs were reserved for further submissions.